Efficiency Improvements for Internal Combustion Engines

[some_other_dave]

The city difference is probably due almost entirely to weight. There are lots and lots of reasons that the fuel economy would be better for one car versus another.

Like I said, it's apples and oranges.

-soD

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's a rotary engine that has been mentioned (I think) but this makes it's operation a little clearer:

The Wave Disk Engine: Cheap, Efficient, Clean, and Different – Gas 2.0

[Frank Lee]

I'm not seeing how the explosion makes the rotor go round.

[dcb]

I'm seeing a lot of weasel numbers/words

[dcb]

ok, here is the glossy: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/LinkClick.a...c%3d&tabid=225

so it is 60% efficient, and some turbines are %70? And they want to put it in a series hybrid, where a turbine could do just as well? What is the point of reinventing the turbine? It sounds like this doesn't have an appropriate torque curve to replace a piston engine directly, nor do the claims of 3.5 times better really make sense if you look at all the priui and etc on the road these days. What do they consider the "average" car? It obviously has to be spinning fast enough to make a shockwave, it may be even more rpm sensitive than a turbine.
WTF? Too many red flags, stick a horn on it.

[t vago]

It would be better if this thread concentrated less on weird, questionable, and wacky internal engine re-designs; and concentrated more on theory and methods to improve the existing 4-cycle gasoline or diesel internal combustion engine as is found in cars and trucks all over the world.

<-- Aerodynamic kitteh is getting extremely weird ears looking at some of the things inside this thread.

[NeilBlanchard]

Piston/crankshaft engines can only be improved a little more than they already are. This wave/turbine is nearly an order of magnitude better; and if it can be produced, then it should be pursued.

Frank, I think the previous wave of combustion pressure acts to compress the next one; since there are two combustion points. The one image only shows one of the exhausts, I think? The design seems to depend on the symmetry.

[Frank Lee]

I get the intake, compression, and ignition. I can see how a "pressure wave" could accomplish the compression function. What I don't see is the explosive force moving anything, except for maybe exhaust escaping the chamber on blowdown (which doesn't strike me as efficient but what do I know?)

If it does work, it is said to be a very high rpm, very low torque device, not suitable for direct mechanical connection to the wheels- which is fine if the system supports that.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

...This wave/turbine is nearly an order of magnitude better...

Do you know what "order of magnitude" means?

And why are you talking about it like a fact? There is zero data backing it up, no working model to test the theories?

And a lot of it is button soup, i.e. a unicorn called uber efficient series transmission, and hybridization and a lot of other efficiency tricks to get to the 3.5x figure (which is based on who knows what?)

Please strive for accurate information, and be critical of your own sources so someone else doesn't have to. Nothing I would rather do less than deal with another misinformation campaign.

[NeilBlanchard]

The claim is it is about 2-3X more efficient.

From another thread: